Search: condonation of delay

2 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 271Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune28 Karnataka21 Delhi20 Jaipur14 Kolkata14 Ahmedabad11 Mumbai11 Bangalore9 Hyderabad7 Chennai6 Cochin6 Visakhapatnam5 Indore4 Chandigarh4 Rajkot4 Amritsar2 Surat2 Guwahati1 SC1 Agra1

Key Topics

Section 26316 Section 271D8 Section 269S6 Penalty2 Condonation of Delay2

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 40/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

section 263 which was neither in the knowledge of the assessee or in the knowledge of its counsel Mr. Mahesh Chander Khungar, Adv. which consequently resulted in delay of 967 days in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. He contended that the issue has been pointed out to the appellant by his newly appointed counsel Mr. Anil

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA